July 2025

by Robin Astle.

From HISTORIC, the FBHVC magazine Issue 6

DVLA by Ian Edmunds

In the last (March) edition, I reported on a very encouraging HVUG (Historic Vehicle User Group) meeting held in December 2024 and noted the Federation’s responses to the generally very positive proposals from DVLA. For this edition I have nothing further substantive to report. The HVUG scheduled for March was cancelled and the next is planned for June.

We remain optimistic that DVLA are working towards a mutually beneficial position on historic vehicle registration and are happy to support them in taking the time to get it right. As always, we will share any news or developments at the earliest opportunity.

Legislation – Lindsay Irvine

INTRODUCTION

Tempus fugit is about the extent of your Latin lesson in this edition. As reflected in the illustration (with thanks to the original illustrator, John Burningham), time has indeed literally flown since the children’s novel, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was first published. 60 years in fact, just after the demise of its famous author, Ian Fleming. Readers of the original James Bond novels will recognise that Fleming liked his cars and portrayed them accurately in the narrative. The exciting cops and robbers plot of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, later radically altered by Roald Dahl for a Hollywood musical, is in effect an homage to a historic vehicle, the original “barn find”. Even if you could not persuade your historic vehicle to take to the skies or the road this April, I hope you purchased your 2025 Drive It Day plate and added to the coffers of the Federation’s partner charity whist enjoying a magical day out in your HV.

I have outlined previously that the legislative threats to our movement largely come under three headings: Environmental, Technical and Social & Economic (my AGM summary in Edition 6 of 2023 expands upon this theme). In the Federation’s early days, we focused on Technical concerns, to ensure our vehicles were not put off the road by their failure to comply with ever developing construction and use regulations. We have all benefitted from past campaigns that have ensured our vehicles can operate, so long as they conform to their original specification and are not restricted on mileage or use.

Latterly, our operations shifted to the Environment. The UK and international focus on man-made climate change heralded legislation mainly stemming from International and EU law on emissions which has led to, inter alia, the inception of CAZ and LEZ and the journey to “Net Zero”. Again, we have successfully lobbied for and obtained suitable “carve outs” for HVs and benefitted from a favourable VED regime.

One final issue I cover below under the Social heading, is the growing call for tightening of medical (particularly eyesight) checks for “older” drivers following a series of fatal accidents. I have also added a short reminder about seatbelt law re: children.

As I have said before, curtailment of our freedom to use our vehicles is likely to be incidental to other policy aims, unintended and so imperceptible as to be almost unnoticed. We remain watchful, of course.

Medical Standards for Drivers

And now for the final topic under the “Social” Pillar. As is contained in most political manifestos, this Government had a generic promise to improve road safety and that a review is underway seems to be confirmed in its response to news features on a particularly controversial topic. One such topic featuring prominently in the media recently (April) was that of fitness to drive, specifically older drivers. Given the “age dynamic” of our movement, this is a relevant issue and I have covered it a number of times previously most recently in Edition 6 of 2023 concerning a then government consultation on medical examinations. That consultation had been prompted by a series of fatal accidents where the medical condition of the elderly drivers was found to have contributed to the collisions. The latest media coverage is of a coroner’s recommendations following inquests into a number of deaths where age related medical conditions played a role. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrv1g2yl0xo

As you would expect, campaigning groups have renewed demands for increased driver testing, arguing that in the UK once a driver has their B licence, and subject to any intervening events, no renewal takes place until aged 70 and even then without any medical scrutiny, particularly eyesight. The UK is criticised for being one of only a few countries which does not require more regular or thorough medical tests during a driver’s career behind the wheel (again excluding HGV or PSV, etc.) and because the renewal at age 70 is based on self-certification.

Up to now Governments and campaigning organisations for older citizens such as Age UK, have resisted more medicals for “private” motorists, relying on drivers and GPs to report unfitness as they are required to do in law. Indeed should you ever have any question on the topic, there is a detailed manual available here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-medical-professionals targeted at medical professionals detailing the conditions which should keep us off the road. This risk-based system has arguably worked sufficiently well that governments have not sought to change it. The UK for many years maintained a number one slot for road safety well ahead of countries which had more regular medical testing.

However, there is a growing impetus for some change. Firstly, we are no longer in top spot for Europe’s safest roads. This report provides the most recent statistics https://etsc.eu/18th-annual-road-safety-performance-index-pin-report/. UK road deaths have not risen but two Scandinavian countries have improved their positions considerably. Secondly, we have a growing cohort of drivers over 80 and over 90, a situation which simply did not exist 40 or 50 years ago. (The statistics are lacking on over 80s, but in 2016 the number of drivers over 70 was 4.6 million and today it is 6.2 million. Of that, 1.65 million are over 80). Some of those will be reading this and I should say that age itself is not the determinative factor on fitness to drive. However, medical science is clear that our physical and cognitive powers decline with age albeit largely compensated for by skill and experience and older drivers tend to tailor their driving ambition accordingly. In the aviation world, the airline pilot must gracefully give up Commercial passenger flying at 65 but can continue general aviation much longer.

It is also the case that in the most egregious reported cases, the drivers concerned had been “tested” but were deliberately ignoring advice not to drive hence the long prison sentences for unlawful killing.

Highway Code Change North of the border

Whilst we cannot provide an update on every Road Traffic law amendment applicable to ALL vehicles as opposed to just HVs, I thought it might be useful to bring to your attention the following changes to a couple of paragraphs of the current Highway Code in Scotland. The “changes” are in effect making rules which are currently of an advisory nature into legal requirements in Scotland, enforceable through criminal prosecution. These rules are in the section of the Code concerning Parking and Waiting and relate to dropped kerbs and pavement parking. First Rule 243 which among other things says:

DO NOT stop or park:

• ……..
• where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles except when forced to do so by stationary traffic.

This now reads additionally: “In Scotland you MUST NOT double park or park anywhere the kerb has been lowered to help pedestrians or cyclists. Exceptions are allowed in limited circumstances.” The legal requirement is in the Transport (Scotland) Act.

Secondly, Rule 244 which bans pavement parking entirely in London has been amended to add “or Scotland”. Elsewhere in the UK, pavement parking remains a “should not” rule.

Seatbelts (Yet again)

In the last Edition I wrote on seatbelts in the context of enforcement and in particular how detection cameras used by the authorities would discriminate between non-wearers in vehicles where seatbelts are fitted and non-wearers where no seatbelts are fitted or required. This topic led to a debate in some motoring journals about the merits of retrospective fitting of seatbelts.

Based on some subsequent correspondence received by the Federation, I realised that in supporting the concerns of those who wish to maintain the originality of their vehicles (me included) and reinforce their legal entitlement to do so, I should have drawn attention to a major restriction where a vehicle is not fitted at all with seatbelts. Notwithstanding certain exemptions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Motor Vehicle (Wearing of Seatbelt) Regulations which allows HVs without seatbelts to be “legal”, it is specifically prohibited to carry children under 3 in vehicles not fitted with seatbelts. See: https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/if-your-vehicle-doesnt-have-seat-belts

Drive It Day 2025

This year we sold 3,732 Drive/Ride It Day plates online and face-to-face, up by 9% on 2024 (3,421).

Participating on the North Norfolk Classic Vehicle Club’s annual St George's Day Run on Drive It Day was a 1899 Panhard & Levassor.

This was the 125th Anniversary of the Panhard’s participation in the first St George's Day Run on 23rd April 1900 which was the first day of the 1000 Mile Trial that Drive It Day now commemorates.

In 1900, few people believed that this invention would be suitable for public use and most people had never even seen a car, as it was estimated there were at the time only about 800 in the UK. The 'Trial' started on St. George’s Day, 23rd April 1900 and cars were limited to the then legal maximum of 14mph.

Organised by the Royal Automobile Club, the trial followed a route through Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Derby, Kendal, Carlisle, Edinburgh Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham and back to London. There were 83 entries but only 65 actually started. By Edinburgh, 51 cars were still running and 35 vehicles eventually made it back to London on 12th May 1900, including this car. It is thought that the Panhard is the only one of the 5 known survivors of the 1000 Mile Trial of 1900 to be running on the road.

This 8hp Panhard was originally owned by the Hon. Charles S. Rolls, but having purchased a 12hp Panhard & Levassor, he sold it to Lt. Col. Mark Mayhew for £1,200 (about £125,000 in today’s money). Mayhew is pictured here in the driving seat.

The Panhard now belongs to the people of Norfolk and is in the care of the Gressenhall Farm and Workhouse Museum of Norfolk Life. It is pictured here being driven in the grounds of Holkham Hall by Andrew Curtis with Museum Curator Rachel Kidd on board.

A very special car on a very special (carbon balanced) day.